Sly, it's a shame to see you reduced to using smoke and mirror - utter trickery - to try to debate your way out of this Hulkamania apologizsm. Let's see if I can educate you a tad, shall we?
"It's simple question. Which "Mania" is the bigger, better "Mania?""
Which is asking which is bigger, not which has lasted longer. I would hope that an annual event would last longer than a human being. To say that an abstract concept is bigger simply because the human body decays is ridiculous.
Which is why longevity should have no bearing on the argument.
Ok, even if I allow you to take longevity out of the argument (which should not happen, since longevity is a perfectly viable peice to the puzzle, as the measure of legacy and staying power is as much an indicator of somethings size and success as anything else) I would still say WrestleMania is bigger than Hulkamania. Now, let me be clear - I am in no way attempting to discount the accomplishments of Hulkamania or Hogan himself. I am merely stating that the event, WrestleMania, is a far larger and more significant "abstract idea" than Hulkamania.
I'm almost certain that McMahon has gone on record saying that without Hogan's drawing power, he would have never even attempted Wrestlemania. In fact, he almost didn't do it to begin with, and that's with Hogan.
Oh, wait, stop the debate! You're
"almost certain!?" Well, that ends it right there! If you'd almost certain that someone may have said something, Sly, there's no way I can combat those facts! :sarcasm
Come on, Sly, like I said, you're better than this. "Almost Certain?" And you know that, even if Vince McMahon did say something of that nature, it's him trying to put Hogan over, because Vince is a genius. Professional Wrestling got along well before Hogan came along, and Hogan did fairly well for himself as a heel before the concept of "Hulkamania."
Now - did WrestleMania succeed thanks in part to the drawing power of Hulk Hogan? Yes, unquestionably. I have never denied that, and I never will. Sly convinced me of that a long time ago. But to say that the one performer was bigger than the stage he performed on is taking it too far. WrestleMania is THE Super Bowl of professional wrestling. It's THE definitive Mania in professional wrestling.
Star power and marketing dollars that existed SOLEY due to Hogan's success.
:sigh: Hogan was a big part of it, but to say that WWF was completely devoid of talent and cash without him is also a little naive. Hogan made a lot possible, but as much as Hogan helped the WWF, the WWF helped Hogan. The Rock and Wrestling Connection wasn't only Hogan's doing - Cyndi Lauper, Lou Albano, etc. had a lot to do with that.
And if Vince McMahon was 100% confident that Hogan could draw for WrestleMania on his own, then the main event would have been a WWF Title Match. Instead, they had to bring in Mr. T. to team with Hogan as a major, mainstream draw. Liberache wasn't there for Hogan. Cyndi Lauper wasn't there for Hogan. They were there for the total package, showcase event - WRESTLEMANIA.
ECW exists without Hulk Hogan, does that mean it's greater than Hulkamania? ROH exists with Hulk Hogan, does that mean it's greater? It makes no sense.
This may be the most pourous argument you've ever made. We're not arguing whether or not Hogan is bigger than ROH's major event. We're not arguing whether ECW is bigger than Hulkamania. This is your smoke and mirrors attempt, and it won't work.
Your entire argument is based on the idea that "WrestleMania wouldn't exist without Hulkamania, and thus Hulkamania is bigger." My point is that WrestleMania is far bigger, and has proven that by actually having growing success in the post-Hulkamania era.
And we are not debating the event vs the man. We are debating two concepts - WrestleMania and Hulkamania. Try to stay on topic, please.
Let's look at WrestleMania 3 and the Andre slam. You can go ahead and make the argument that Hulk Hogan was a major draw for WrestleMania 3, but the facts are these:
1. Lots of other people would have been capable of slamming Andre the Giant, but for Hogan to do it made the most sense, and
2. There is a reason this event occured at WRESTLEMANIA. Because that was, by far, the biggest, grandest stage of them all. Had Hogan slammed Andre on Saturday Night's Main Event, the match and the occurance would not be remembered with the level of reverence that it is today because of the fact that it happened AT WRESTLEMANIA. That is a big reason why WrestleMania is the biggest and most important Mania in professional wrestling history.
To make the example fit, you have to compare the phenomenon to the cause of the phenomenon. Hogan caused Hulkamania and the WWE caused Wrestlemania. The difference is that the WWE doesn't create their phenomenon without Hogan creating his.
And Hogan doesn't create his phenomenon without WWE marketing him, exposing him, and making him larger than life on the biggest stage in the history of the sport - WrestleMania.
Your entire post is nothing but faulty logic and leaps of useless information.
You're right. I should have solidifed it by saying I was "almost certain somebody once said something." Lesson learned.
What's your next act, IC? Saying that the NWA is a bigger wrestling organization than the WWE, because it's been around longer?
Another naive attempt at smoke and mirrors. This silly post assumes my entire argument was longevity - and that's not true, nor did it ever come off that way. As usual, you are picking apart individual sentences from their context to dissect an argument. Technically, WrestleMania hasn't been around too much longer than Hulkamania. Hulkamania was born on January 23rd, 1984. WrestleMania was borh March 31st, 1985. So in total, maybe 2-3 years difference? My point was that WrestleMania has thrived without Hogan, and obviously didn't need Hogan to continue on. Why? Because WrestleMania is bigger than Hulkamania.
